|
On July 26 2012 06:00 Thorakh wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 05:57 Ramanujan wrote:On July 26 2012 05:52 Thorakh wrote:On July 26 2012 05:43 Ramanujan wrote:On July 26 2012 04:46 sirkyan wrote:On July 26 2012 04:37 Felnarion wrote:On July 26 2012 04:17 nkr wrote:Lets say we can never convince the doubters that we are 100% the cause of global warming. I used my incredible paint skills to illustrate why "taking action" against global warming should be the obvious choice, regardless of if we can proove that humans are the sole cause. ![[image loading]](http://i50.tinypic.com/24fbn0o.jpg) This is ridiculous. If I did the same thing for religion, would you buy it? If Christianity true, then you burn in hell for eternity, if not, you're dead anyway. Of course not. Same for eating peanuts. If I tell you eating peanuts could cause cancer would you stop eating them? Because if I'm right, you're going to die of cancer. If I'm wrong, well, you just can't have peanuts, No big Which is completely fucking ridiculous. The difference between what your propose and global warming is that global warming is supported with evidence. If you had evidence I would get cancer from peanuts, I'd stop eating peanuts(I can't eat atm anyway, allergic, but you get the point). If religion proved to be true I'd start praying and all that jazz, assuming it works. But now, as we sit, global warming remains true and the other things remain complete bullshit. The matrix is poorly constructed in that it allows the reader to be biased. It should include the fact that there are lots of evidence for one of the columns. Also, this stuff is way beyond a single individual. The fact that the collective mind of the fucking denialists is screwing what is likely the only planet we will ever inhabit pisses me off. Calling people "denialists" because they don't believe the latest fad that will soon be forgotten is pretty hilarious. What about the people that didn't believe the ice age was coming in the 70's? What about the people that didn't believe the world will end in the year 2000? What about the people that didn't believe SARS would kill us all? Or the bird flu? What about the people that didn't believe snow would be a thing of the past by the late 90's? Stupid denialists, huh? The "scientific community" (whatever that is) were as agreed on many of these things as they are about this. The proof now is NOT better. To me and many others it just seems like a big, convenient lie. Of course HUMANITY is destroying the planet (again), and of course POLITICIANS can save it (again)... You people are god damn fucking amazing. Even in the face of fucktons of proof by the entire climatology field of science you still have the audacity to deny it. My fucking god... There is no proof. No, computer simulations that show different things in the most complex system we have ever tried to understand or simulate and where only the simulations that show a warming are presented aren't proof. Try again. It's a wonder you are even here to type this since the world should already have been destroyed a couple times over, based on even better "proof" that you believe in now. You are comparing religious end of world predictions/conspiracy theories with scientific studies. Get the fuck out. Seriously, I don't know how old you are but for your sake I hope you're 50+ because else you're going to experience the effects of global warming when it really hits. Scientific studies are "no proof". What are you smoking? Did you even try to educate yourself in this or did you just listen to Fox news?
Umm, no I'm not. The things I mentioned were things supported by scientific evidence.
And no, obviously scientific studies aren't proof. That would make the universe implode when two scientific studies contradict one another...
Imagine the past. We were wrong about most things, wouldn't you say? We were wrong about mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, geology. We didn't even know about evolution. We had the wrong morals (no one should be born into a life of slavery; states should not be led by a lone ruler). We were wrong about astronomy (the sun isn't revolving around the earth). We were wrong about geography (there's a huge fucking continent that isn't Asia to the west of Europe).
Now imagine the future. What will the people then say about us (provided they survive the global warming, of course)?
Are you so sure, that THIS time, in the MOST COMPLEX thing we have EVER studied, we are right? Are you prepared to throw everything overboard because it, I don't know, maybe perhaps sounds like a reasonable scientific theory?
I'm not, and I'm RIDICULED for it. I think that's pretty insane.
edit: just noticed you're just an internet kiddie talking about fox news so this message isn't directed at you, only actual thinking people. goodbye.
|
Then WHAT does constitute proof for you? God saying it's real?
And besides, any sane person CANNOT deny global warming because ACTUAL DATA shows that CO2 AND global average temperature has been increasing over the past decades.
Of course you're going to be ridiculed over it. It's like saying the world is flat.
What about the people that didn't believe the ice age was coming in the 70's? What about the people that didn't believe the world will end in the year 2000? What about the people that didn't believe SARS would kill us all? Or the bird flu? What about the people that didn't believe snow would be a thing of the past by the late 90's? Stupid denialists, huh? Umm, no I'm not. The things I mentioned were things supported by scientific evidence. What the FUCK? None of those things were supported by scientific evidence. Only conspiracy theory nut jobs believed in them.
I'm sorry but I get FUCKING MAD over this. I still have an entire life ahead of me and I don't want it to fucking go to waste because some people REFUSE to accept the evidence and proof.
|
You are a drama queen Thorakh, the worlds not gonna end because some ice melted. Cursing out people on a video game forum wouldn't save it even if it was going to.
|
Of course the world is not going to end. But life will get a lot harder.
|
Arguing that people were wrong in the past is a fucking terrible argument. We know things now that are pretty hard to ignore from science because we have the technology to see things on a celluar level in the human body and the knowledge to piece it all together with physics and chemistry and biology. I highly doubt humanity will vastly change it's understanding of the human heart for example we pretty much know every single detail there is to know about it. It's pretty hard to deny that humans don't have a horrific effect on the environment even without global warming and it is stupid do so.
|
On July 26 2012 06:20 Thorakh wrote:
Then WHAT does constitute proof for you? God saying it's real?
Sure, if God showed himself and told me it's real I would probably consider that proof, or that I'm clinically insane. Either or. I believe in gravity, evolution, and doctors washing their hands prior to delivering bodies after they have been touching dead bodies, so any evidence that is on par with that I consider pretty rigorous. And that's saying pretty much, actually, since we don't know much about gravity, the theory of evolution is contested, and it was considered ridiculous that doctors wash their hands before delivering babies up until pretty recently.
And besides, any sane person CANNOT deny global warming because ACTUAL DATA shows that CO2 AND global average temperature has been increasing over the past decades.
That doesn't, in any way, show that humans are responsible or that co2 is responsible. Bacon is also more common, maybe bacon is responsible?
Of course you're going to be ridiculed over it. It's like saying the world is flat.
What kind of world do you live in where not believing in a very recent, unproven theory that many people don't believe in is the same thing as believing the world is flat? Pretty strange place, that must be.
I'm sorry but I get FUCKING MAD over this. I still have an entire life ahead of me and I don't want it to fucking go to waste because some people REFUSE to accept the evidence and proof.
Relax. There are way bigger problems to worry about.
|
Thanks for bringing this to my attention,
|
On July 26 2012 06:31 tokicheese wrote:
Arguing that people were wrong in the past is a fucking terrible argument. We know things now that are pretty hard to ignore from science because we have the technology to see things on a celluar level in the human body and the knowledge to piece it all together with physics and chemistry and biology. I highly doubt humanity will vastly change it's understanding of the human heart for example we pretty much know every single detail there is to know about it. It's pretty hard to deny that humans don't have a horrific effect on the environment even without global warming and it is stupid do so.
Yeah we have perfect knowledge now, hurrr. Seriously, study weather and you will realize how extremely little we know about it. Earth is ridiculously complex system, yet we think we can SIMULATE it in computers. That's silly.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
That doesn't, in any way, show that humans are responsible or that co2 is responsible. Bacon is also more common, maybe bacon is responsible? It doesn't even matter what's responsible. Fact is that average temperatures are increasing at fast rate. Action will need to be taken regardless of the cause.
Although I do believe man is the cause of it (simply because that is the current scientific consensus, and who am I to doubt people who actually do research?) it isn't really of much relevance to the question "Does action need to be taken?", because it does.
Global warming (regardless of the cause!) will cause lots of problems. Harvests going bad, clean water supplies disappearing, all things that are needed for our global society to function. It wouldn't surprise me if wars are going to come of this. Sure, the human race as a whole won't die out, but there's a good chance civilization as we know it won't survive.
|
On July 26 2012 06:10 Ramanujan wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 06:00 Thorakh wrote:On July 26 2012 05:57 Ramanujan wrote:On July 26 2012 05:52 Thorakh wrote:On July 26 2012 05:43 Ramanujan wrote:On July 26 2012 04:46 sirkyan wrote:On July 26 2012 04:37 Felnarion wrote:On July 26 2012 04:17 nkr wrote:Lets say we can never convince the doubters that we are 100% the cause of global warming. I used my incredible paint skills to illustrate why "taking action" against global warming should be the obvious choice, regardless of if we can proove that humans are the sole cause. This is ridiculous. If I did the same thing for religion, would you buy it? If Christianity true, then you burn in hell for eternity, if not, you're dead anyway. Of course not. Same for eating peanuts. If I tell you eating peanuts could cause cancer would you stop eating them? Because if I'm right, you're going to die of cancer. If I'm wrong, well, you just can't have peanuts, No big Which is completely fucking ridiculous. The difference between what your propose and global warming is that global warming is supported with evidence. If you had evidence I would get cancer from peanuts, I'd stop eating peanuts(I can't eat atm anyway, allergic, but you get the point). If religion proved to be true I'd start praying and all that jazz, assuming it works. But now, as we sit, global warming remains true and the other things remain complete bullshit. The matrix is poorly constructed in that it allows the reader to be biased. It should include the fact that there are lots of evidence for one of the columns. Also, this stuff is way beyond a single individual. The fact that the collective mind of the fucking denialists is screwing what is likely the only planet we will ever inhabit pisses me off. Calling people "denialists" because they don't believe the latest fad that will soon be forgotten is pretty hilarious. What about the people that didn't believe the ice age was coming in the 70's? What about the people that didn't believe the world will end in the year 2000? What about the people that didn't believe SARS would kill us all? Or the bird flu? What about the people that didn't believe snow would be a thing of the past by the late 90's? Stupid denialists, huh? The "scientific community" (whatever that is) were as agreed on many of these things as they are about this. The proof now is NOT better. To me and many others it just seems like a big, convenient lie. Of course HUMANITY is destroying the planet (again), and of course POLITICIANS can save it (again)... You people are god damn fucking amazing. Even in the face of fucktons of proof by the entire climatology field of science you still have the audacity to deny it. My fucking god... There is no proof. No, computer simulations that show different things in the most complex system we have ever tried to understand or simulate and where only the simulations that show a warming are presented aren't proof. Try again. It's a wonder you are even here to type this since the world should already have been destroyed a couple times over, based on even better "proof" that you believe in now. You are comparing religious end of world predictions/conspiracy theories with scientific studies. Get the fuck out. Seriously, I don't know how old you are but for your sake I hope you're 50+ because else you're going to experience the effects of global warming when it really hits. Scientific studies are "no proof". What are you smoking? Did you even try to educate yourself in this or did you just listen to Fox news? Umm, no I'm not. The things I mentioned were things supported by scientific evidence. And no, obviously scientific studies aren't proof. That would make the universe implode when two scientific studies contradict one another... Imagine the past. We were wrong about most things, wouldn't you say? We were wrong about mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, geology. We didn't even know about evolution. We had the wrong morals (no one should be born into a life of slavery; states should not be led by a lone ruler). We were wrong about astronomy (the sun isn't revolving around the earth). We were wrong about geography (there's a huge fucking continent that isn't Asia to the west of Europe). Now imagine the future. What will the people then say about us (provided they survive the global warming, of course)? Are you so sure, that THIS time, in the MOST COMPLEX thing we have EVER studied, we are right? Are you prepared to throw everything overboard because it, I don't know, maybe perhaps sounds like a reasonable scientific theory? I'm not, and I'm RIDICULED for it. I think that's pretty insane. edit: just noticed you're just an internet kiddie talking about fox news so this message isn't directed at you, only actual thinking people. goodbye.
Listen, your poster-name is Ramanujan, I am going to assume you mean Srinivasa and thus assume you are interested in math which would attribute you with logic and a scientific mind (math is closely related, at least). If you don't believe me, read the abundance of reports that have been posted. Draw your own conclusions. They will no doubt fall in to the category of "oh shit". I'm not saying we are going to die in 10, 50 or even 500 years. But the world is going askew. I'm almost positive global warming isn't what will kill us anyway, it'll just play the role of a catalyst in an already dysfunctional society. I don't know dude, whatever. As someone pointed out, this is a video game homepage, I don't expect this topic to have a whole lot of well-informed visitors.
Bolded is speculation, obviously.
|
On July 26 2012 06:48 Ramanujan wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 06:31 tokicheese wrote:
Arguing that people were wrong in the past is a fucking terrible argument. We know things now that are pretty hard to ignore from science because we have the technology to see things on a celluar level in the human body and the knowledge to piece it all together with physics and chemistry and biology. I highly doubt humanity will vastly change it's understanding of the human heart for example we pretty much know every single detail there is to know about it. It's pretty hard to deny that humans don't have a horrific effect on the environment even without global warming and it is stupid do so. Yeah we have perfect knowledge now, hurrr. Seriously, study weather and you will realize how extremely little we know about it. Earth is ridiculously complex system, yet we think we can SIMULATE it in computers. That's silly.
We can make fairly good predictions that get better and better as time passes.
Why do you need perfect understanding of a phenomenon to try to predict its behavior now? We don't have perfect understanding of anything, yet we know enough to shoot people into space and back with the bits and pieces that we've gathered about physics.
|
On July 26 2012 06:50 Thorakh wrote:Show nested quote +That doesn't, in any way, show that humans are responsible or that co2 is responsible. Bacon is also more common, maybe bacon is responsible? It doesn't even matter what's responsible. Fact is that average temperatures are increasing at fast rate. Action will need to be taken regardless of the cause. Although I do believe man is the cause of it (simply because that is the current scientific consensus, and who am I to doubt people who actually do research?) it isn't really of much relevance to the question "Does action need to be taken?", because it does. Global warming (regardless of the cause!) will cause lots of problems. Harvests going bad, clean water supplies disappearing, all things that are needed for our global society to function. It wouldn't surprise me if wars are going to come of this. Sure, the human race as a whole won't die out, but there's a good chance civilization as we know it won't survive.
No, even that is not a fact. There's no such thing as an average temperature, by the way, since there exist no standard way of averaging temperatures. Maybe there will, one day, but right now it doesn't. So basically, you can pick any way you want and they will of course yield different results.
|
I find the arguments for and against global warming as trite and naive. In particular because the arguments against them are wholly based on ignorance and laziness. If you don't believe it's happening, that's fine, but there's fundamentally true things that we should be doing regardless of whether or not it's true. You can't actually argue that it's better for us to pollute the environment or better for us to make less gas efficient cars, or to have our roofs be black and our roads be black because they've just been doing it forever, regardless of how bad a choice that is for energy consumption.
People are very, very stupid and take grip, take hold on extremely irrelevant details that don't matter. Is global warming happening? If you think it is, cool we should do all this shit to make the world a better place. If you think it isn't, cool we should do all this shit to make the world a better place anyways because it's objectively good for the world. No one seems to argue that using solar power and hybrid / electric cars are a bad thing, and those are things that help prevent our impact on the world.
It should be very obvious to anyone over the age of 17 that humans have a profoundly negative impact on nature, I'm not saying we shouldn't make roads or some crazy shit like that, but can we make better roads? Can we make better houses? Better infrastructure? We can, but we have these fucking billionaire companies who are too afraid to invest in them because god forbid they pioneer a new market that's actually fucking helpful to everyone.
|
On July 26 2012 06:51 sirkyan wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 06:10 Ramanujan wrote:On July 26 2012 06:00 Thorakh wrote:On July 26 2012 05:57 Ramanujan wrote:On July 26 2012 05:52 Thorakh wrote:On July 26 2012 05:43 Ramanujan wrote:On July 26 2012 04:46 sirkyan wrote:On July 26 2012 04:37 Felnarion wrote:On July 26 2012 04:17 nkr wrote:Lets say we can never convince the doubters that we are 100% the cause of global warming. I used my incredible paint skills to illustrate why "taking action" against global warming should be the obvious choice, regardless of if we can proove that humans are the sole cause. This is ridiculous. If I did the same thing for religion, would you buy it? If Christianity true, then you burn in hell for eternity, if not, you're dead anyway. Of course not. Same for eating peanuts. If I tell you eating peanuts could cause cancer would you stop eating them? Because if I'm right, you're going to die of cancer. If I'm wrong, well, you just can't have peanuts, No big Which is completely fucking ridiculous. The difference between what your propose and global warming is that global warming is supported with evidence. If you had evidence I would get cancer from peanuts, I'd stop eating peanuts(I can't eat atm anyway, allergic, but you get the point). If religion proved to be true I'd start praying and all that jazz, assuming it works. But now, as we sit, global warming remains true and the other things remain complete bullshit. The matrix is poorly constructed in that it allows the reader to be biased. It should include the fact that there are lots of evidence for one of the columns. Also, this stuff is way beyond a single individual. The fact that the collective mind of the fucking denialists is screwing what is likely the only planet we will ever inhabit pisses me off. Calling people "denialists" because they don't believe the latest fad that will soon be forgotten is pretty hilarious. What about the people that didn't believe the ice age was coming in the 70's? What about the people that didn't believe the world will end in the year 2000? What about the people that didn't believe SARS would kill us all? Or the bird flu? What about the people that didn't believe snow would be a thing of the past by the late 90's? Stupid denialists, huh? The "scientific community" (whatever that is) were as agreed on many of these things as they are about this. The proof now is NOT better. To me and many others it just seems like a big, convenient lie. Of course HUMANITY is destroying the planet (again), and of course POLITICIANS can save it (again)... You people are god damn fucking amazing. Even in the face of fucktons of proof by the entire climatology field of science you still have the audacity to deny it. My fucking god... There is no proof. No, computer simulations that show different things in the most complex system we have ever tried to understand or simulate and where only the simulations that show a warming are presented aren't proof. Try again. It's a wonder you are even here to type this since the world should already have been destroyed a couple times over, based on even better "proof" that you believe in now. You are comparing religious end of world predictions/conspiracy theories with scientific studies. Get the fuck out. Seriously, I don't know how old you are but for your sake I hope you're 50+ because else you're going to experience the effects of global warming when it really hits. Scientific studies are "no proof". What are you smoking? Did you even try to educate yourself in this or did you just listen to Fox news? Umm, no I'm not. The things I mentioned were things supported by scientific evidence. And no, obviously scientific studies aren't proof. That would make the universe implode when two scientific studies contradict one another... Imagine the past. We were wrong about most things, wouldn't you say? We were wrong about mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, geology. We didn't even know about evolution. We had the wrong morals (no one should be born into a life of slavery; states should not be led by a lone ruler). We were wrong about astronomy (the sun isn't revolving around the earth). We were wrong about geography (there's a huge fucking continent that isn't Asia to the west of Europe). Now imagine the future. What will the people then say about us (provided they survive the global warming, of course)? Are you so sure, that THIS time, in the MOST COMPLEX thing we have EVER studied, we are right? Are you prepared to throw everything overboard because it, I don't know, maybe perhaps sounds like a reasonable scientific theory? I'm not, and I'm RIDICULED for it. I think that's pretty insane. edit: just noticed you're just an internet kiddie talking about fox news so this message isn't directed at you, only actual thinking people. goodbye. Listen, your poster-name is Ramanujan, I am going to assume you mean Srinivasa and thus assume you are interested in math which would attribute you with logic and a scientific mind (math is closely related, at least). If you don't believe me, read the abundance of reports that have been posted. Draw your own conclusions. They will no doubt fall in to the category of "oh shit". I'm not saying we are going to die in 10, 50 or even 500 years. But the world is going askew. I'm almost positive global warming isn't what will kill us anyway, it'll just play the role of a catalyst in an already dysfunctional society. I don't know dude, whatever. As someone pointed out, this is a video game homepage, I don't expect this topic to have a whole lot of well-informed visitors. Bolded is speculation, obviously.
That's who I mean.
You could be right. But so could anyone. I still think the best solution is just to plant more trees, but ironically, the ones who seem to hate that idea (and trees in general) the most is the global warming believers. I mean, "climate neutral" is actually a thing now, where we plant the same number of trees we chop down and pretend nothing has changed. Yeah. Doesn't work that way.
|
On July 26 2012 07:03 Kich wrote:
I find the arguments for and against global warming as trite and naive. In particular because the arguments against them are wholly based on ignorance and laziness. If you don't believe it's happening, that's fine, but there's fundamentally true things that we should be doing regardless of whether or not it's true. You can't actually argue that it's better for us to pollute the environment or better for us to make less gas efficient cars, or to have our roofs be black and our roads be black because they've just been doing it forever, regardless of how bad a choice that is for energy consumption.
People are very, very stupid and take grip, take hold on extremely irrelevant details that don't matter. Is global warming happening? If you think it is, cool we should do all this shit to make the world a better place. If you think it isn't, cool we should do all this shit to make the world a better place anyways because it's objectively good for the world. No one seems to argue that using solar power and hybrid / electric cars are a bad thing, and those are things that help prevent our impact on the world.
It should be very obvious to anyone over the age of 17 that humans have a profoundly negative impact on nature, I'm not saying we shouldn't make roads or some crazy shit like that, but can we make better roads? Can we make better houses? Better infrastructure? We can, but we have these fucking billionaire companies who are too afraid to invest in them because god forbid they pioneer a new market that's actually fucking helpful to everyone.
So, you would be for, say, rounding up a few million poor people and giving them a bullet to the head, if it would help solve your unproven theory?
|
On July 26 2012 07:08 Ramanujan wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 07:03 Kich wrote:
I find the arguments for and against global warming as trite and naive. In particular because the arguments against them are wholly based on ignorance and laziness. If you don't believe it's happening, that's fine, but there's fundamentally true things that we should be doing regardless of whether or not it's true. You can't actually argue that it's better for us to pollute the environment or better for us to make less gas efficient cars, or to have our roofs be black and our roads be black because they've just been doing it forever, regardless of how bad a choice that is for energy consumption.
People are very, very stupid and take grip, take hold on extremely irrelevant details that don't matter. Is global warming happening? If you think it is, cool we should do all this shit to make the world a better place. If you think it isn't, cool we should do all this shit to make the world a better place anyways because it's objectively good for the world. No one seems to argue that using solar power and hybrid / electric cars are a bad thing, and those are things that help prevent our impact on the world.
It should be very obvious to anyone over the age of 17 that humans have a profoundly negative impact on nature, I'm not saying we shouldn't make roads or some crazy shit like that, but can we make better roads? Can we make better houses? Better infrastructure? We can, but we have these fucking billionaire companies who are too afraid to invest in them because god forbid they pioneer a new market that's actually fucking helpful to everyone. So, you would be for, say, rounding up a few million poor people and giving them a bullet to the head, if it would help solve your unproven theory?
Under what circumstance is genocide objectively good for the world? That's kind of fucked up.
|
On July 26 2012 07:03 Kich wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I find the arguments for and against global warming as trite and naive. In particular because the arguments against them are wholly based on ignorance and laziness. If you don't believe it's happening, that's fine, but there's fundamentally true things that we should be doing regardless of whether or not it's true. You can't actually argue that it's better for us to pollute the environment or better for us to make less gas efficient cars, or to have our roofs be black and our roads be black because they've just been doing it forever, regardless of how bad a choice that is for energy consumption.
People are very, very stupid and take grip, take hold on extremely irrelevant details that don't matter. Is global warming happening? If you think it is, cool we should do all this shit to make the world a better place. If you think it isn't, cool we should do all this shit to make the world a better place anyways because it's objectively good for the world. No one seems to argue that using solar power and hybrid / electric cars are a bad thing, and those are things that help prevent our impact on the world.
It should be very obvious to anyone over the age of 17 that humans have a profoundly negative impact on nature, I'm not saying we shouldn't make roads or some crazy shit like that, but can we make better roads? Can we make better houses? Better infrastructure? We can, but we have these fucking billionaire companies who are too afraid to invest in them because god forbid they pioneer a new market that's actually fucking helpful to everyone.
No one is arguing about green energy and optimization of tech is bad, we just have different priorities. What's going to happen will happen.
What people argue for / against is basically the time in which the improvements occur.
|
On July 26 2012 07:08 Kich wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 07:08 Ramanujan wrote:On July 26 2012 07:03 Kich wrote:
I find the arguments for and against global warming as trite and naive. In particular because the arguments against them are wholly based on ignorance and laziness. If you don't believe it's happening, that's fine, but there's fundamentally true things that we should be doing regardless of whether or not it's true. You can't actually argue that it's better for us to pollute the environment or better for us to make less gas efficient cars, or to have our roofs be black and our roads be black because they've just been doing it forever, regardless of how bad a choice that is for energy consumption.
People are very, very stupid and take grip, take hold on extremely irrelevant details that don't matter. Is global warming happening? If you think it is, cool we should do all this shit to make the world a better place. If you think it isn't, cool we should do all this shit to make the world a better place anyways because it's objectively good for the world. No one seems to argue that using solar power and hybrid / electric cars are a bad thing, and those are things that help prevent our impact on the world.
It should be very obvious to anyone over the age of 17 that humans have a profoundly negative impact on nature, I'm not saying we shouldn't make roads or some crazy shit like that, but can we make better roads? Can we make better houses? Better infrastructure? We can, but we have these fucking billionaire companies who are too afraid to invest in them because god forbid they pioneer a new market that's actually fucking helpful to everyone. So, you would be for, say, rounding up a few million poor people and giving them a bullet to the head, if it would help solve your unproven theory? Under what circumstance is genocide objectively good for the world? That's kind of fucked up.
I don't know, ask Gandhi?
It was a thought experiment. It's what will happen (their deaths, anyway, not necessarily by a bullet to the head) when you take money and burn it. You know, since they are poor? Obviously it doesn't matter much to us rich people.
|
On July 26 2012 07:09 sirkyan wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 07:03 Kich wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I find the arguments for and against global warming as trite and naive. In particular because the arguments against them are wholly based on ignorance and laziness. If you don't believe it's happening, that's fine, but there's fundamentally true things that we should be doing regardless of whether or not it's true. You can't actually argue that it's better for us to pollute the environment or better for us to make less gas efficient cars, or to have our roofs be black and our roads be black because they've just been doing it forever, regardless of how bad a choice that is for energy consumption.
People are very, very stupid and take grip, take hold on extremely irrelevant details that don't matter. Is global warming happening? If you think it is, cool we should do all this shit to make the world a better place. If you think it isn't, cool we should do all this shit to make the world a better place anyways because it's objectively good for the world. No one seems to argue that using solar power and hybrid / electric cars are a bad thing, and those are things that help prevent our impact on the world.
It should be very obvious to anyone over the age of 17 that humans have a profoundly negative impact on nature, I'm not saying we shouldn't make roads or some crazy shit like that, but can we make better roads? Can we make better houses? Better infrastructure? We can, but we have these fucking billionaire companies who are too afraid to invest in them because god forbid they pioneer a new market that's actually fucking helpful to everyone. No one is arguing about green energy and optimization of tech is bad, we just have different priorities. What's going to happen will happen. What people argue for / against is basically the time in which the improvements occur.
Under what circumstances is waiting to improve our country better than not just..doing it. It's not anything we have any control over (which is sort of an issue), it's the people with the money. Regardless, it should be very obvious that arguing about global warming is both useless and irrelevant, regardless if it's occurring we can be doing things to improve the world, and whether it's happening or not no longer matters.
|
On July 26 2012 07:10 Ramanujan wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 07:08 Kich wrote:On July 26 2012 07:08 Ramanujan wrote:On July 26 2012 07:03 Kich wrote:
I find the arguments for and against global warming as trite and naive. In particular because the arguments against them are wholly based on ignorance and laziness. If you don't believe it's happening, that's fine, but there's fundamentally true things that we should be doing regardless of whether or not it's true. You can't actually argue that it's better for us to pollute the environment or better for us to make less gas efficient cars, or to have our roofs be black and our roads be black because they've just been doing it forever, regardless of how bad a choice that is for energy consumption.
People are very, very stupid and take grip, take hold on extremely irrelevant details that don't matter. Is global warming happening? If you think it is, cool we should do all this shit to make the world a better place. If you think it isn't, cool we should do all this shit to make the world a better place anyways because it's objectively good for the world. No one seems to argue that using solar power and hybrid / electric cars are a bad thing, and those are things that help prevent our impact on the world.
It should be very obvious to anyone over the age of 17 that humans have a profoundly negative impact on nature, I'm not saying we shouldn't make roads or some crazy shit like that, but can we make better roads? Can we make better houses? Better infrastructure? We can, but we have these fucking billionaire companies who are too afraid to invest in them because god forbid they pioneer a new market that's actually fucking helpful to everyone. So, you would be for, say, rounding up a few million poor people and giving them a bullet to the head, if it would help solve your unproven theory? Under what circumstance is genocide objectively good for the world? That's kind of fucked up. I don't know, ask Gandhi? It was a thought experiment. It's what will happen (their deaths, anyway, not necessarily by a bullet to the head) when you take money and burn it. You know, since they are poor? Obviously it doesn't matter much to us rich people.
At what point are we taking money from the poor, what does this have anything to do with what I said? Perhaps your misunderstood me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
